IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1058 of 2008()
1. SUNDARESAN NAIR, RETIRED POLICE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.J.MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :28/05/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
————————————–
W.A. No. 1058 of 2008
—————————————
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Appellant/Petitioner was a police constable. He retired
on superannuation in March, 2003. A disciplinary action was
initiated against him in 1996 on the allegation that there was lapse
on his part while he was posted for night duty at
Thiruvananthapuram University College. After enquiry, an order was
passed on 24.8.1996 barring three increments without cumulative
effect. No appeal was filed against the above decision. After his
retirement, he filed a review petition. That was dismissed by Ext.P1.
It is contended that the Government originally thought that barring
of three increments is excessive and, therefore, it was decided
tentatively to reduce the punishment to barring of two increments
instead of three increments and Government consulted the Public
Service Commission for the purpose. PSC was of the view that
review petition was filed after about seven years and, that too, after
retirement. As per the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, he
did not file the petition in time fearing displeasure and victimisation.
W.A.No. 1058/2008 2
Even after his retirement in 2003, he did not file the review
application within a reasonable time. He filed the application only in
2005. It is submitted that consultation with the PSC is not
mandatory as it is a minor punishment. But, the learned single
judge was of the view that even if consultation with PSC is not
mandatory, Government can always consult the PSC. In any event,
review application was not filed within a reasonable time and the
petitioner has not filed a statutory appeal and slept over the matter
for six years. The learned single Judge has considered the aspect of
delay after considering his explanation. It is submitted that there is
no ground for interference or directing the Government to grant
retrospective promotion to the petitioner after his retirement. We
see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. Appeal is
dismissed.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
P.N.Ravindran
Judge
vaa
W.A.No. 1058/2008 3
W.A.No. 1058/2008 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ.
————————————-
W.A. No. 1058 of 2008
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:28th May, 2008